23XI statement on not signing Charter agreement

The car is so awesome that there are a multitude of changes next year, depending on the track, in an effort to improve the racing product.
Perhaps they should have consulted the teams and drivers that race these things.
 
StandOnIt said:
Typical Bell. Like Pockrass says there will be an appeal.


Click to expand...

Here is Bell being a legal bench idiot. It’s judgements like that which give me pause as to his fairness (and suspicion of bias). What NASCAR wants to introduce is vital, goes to their claim of consequences relative to decisions AND their rationale for validating the current system, which helped the entire ecosystem achieve the current TV rights package.

Bell says they can take it up on appeal. He knows his FIX is in and he’s fully prepared for being usurped again like a cheap suit by the higher court. This guy needs to retire.
 
Conover said:
Here is Bell being a legal bench idiot. It’s judgements like that which give me pause as to his fairness (and suspicion of bias). What NASCAR wants to introduce is vital, goes to their claim of consequences relative to decisions AND their rationale for validating the current system, which helped the entire ecosystem achieve the current TV rights package.

Bell says they can take it up on appeal. He knows his FIX is in and he’s fully prepared for being usurped again like a cheap suit by the higher court. This guy needs to retire.
Click to expand...
One of the female lawyers was wearing a walking cast. Bell said to her is that a Jordan?
 
Conover said:
Here is Bell being a legal bench idiot. It’s judgements like that which give me pause as to his fairness (and suspicion of bias). What NASCAR wants to introduce is vital, goes to their claim of consequences relative to decisions AND their rationale for validating the current system, which helped the entire ecosystem achieve the current TV rights package.

Bell says they can take it up on appeal. He knows his FIX is in and he’s fully prepared for being usurped again like a cheap suit by the higher court. This guy needs to retire.
Click to expand...
Nah that doesn't matter that a media group exec was going to testify about a clause in their contract that if teams leave the series, their contract is nul and void. We don't need to hear that right? That would be no reason to lock in the teams in the series. :cuckoo:
 
I don't know enough about the law to know if this is grounds for a mistrial, but it sure looks like grounds for an appeal.

1765423124014.png
 
F1, IMSA, IndyCar, I guess throw AMA in there to,
have all gone through these gyrations and came out
the other end. NASCAR will change somewhat after
this but I would really be surprised if it was
blown up and ended as we know it. Too many
rich people in and near the sport to let that happen.
 
Conover said:
Here is Bell being a legal bench idiot. It’s judgements like that which give me pause as to his fairness (and suspicion of bias). What NASCAR wants to introduce is vital, goes to their claim of consequences relative to decisions AND their rationale for validating the current system, which helped the entire ecosystem achieve the current TV rights package.

Bell says they can take it up on appeal. He knows his FIX is in and he’s fully prepared for being usurped again like a cheap suit by the higher court. This guy needs to retire.
Click to expand...

The trial is about whether NASCAR has committed anti-competitive actions that rise to the level of illegality. It is not a valid defense to assert that they had to use their monopoly power to exclude competition to preserve maximal income streams. That doesn't provide any legal justification. Many areas were declared off limits prior to and during trial, as in every trial. The irrelevance is the basis for it being excluded. Of course it is all subject to appeal.
 
You have to complete idiot to think anything an SRX car looked anything like what's in NASCAR.

But people will defend this because reasons, and say anyone who questions it want the sport dead.
1000006315.jpg
 
BobbyFord said:
I don’t think anyone that is invested enough to offer an opinion about this lawsuit is interested in seeing this sport fail.
Those of us hoping for a NASCAR loss in this litigation are hoping for better times for the sport.
Click to expand...
And those hoping for a NASCAR win want the sport to not be destroyed.
 
StandOnIt said:
Nah that doesn't matter that a media group exec was going to testify about a clause in their contract that if teams leave the series, their contract is nul and void. We don't need to hear that right? That would be no reason to lock in the teams in the series. :cuckoo:
Click to expand...
Why would that pertain to whether past actions were legal?
 
Blaze said:
You have to complete idiot to think anything an SRX car looked anything like what's in NASCAR.

But people will defend this because reasons, and say anyone who questions it want the sport dead.
View attachment 89343
Click to expand...
I don't think its as much of a reach as you think for the casual fans. They see FedEx and Denny and all of a sudden the leap isn't that far.

I cant tell you how many times I was watching an Xfinity race and my wife or dad would ask "is this the big race?" (They don't even know series names) and I'll reply no and then they say oh I saw so and so in it and thought it was the big race
 
Blaze said:
You have to complete idiot to think anything an SRX car looked anything like what's in NASCAR.

But people will defend this because reasons, and say anyone who questions it want the sport dead.
View attachment 89343
Click to expand...
Sponsors often participate in multiple series. NASCAR had no problem with HendrickCars.com on an IndyCar.

An SRX car looked as much like a funny car as a stock car.
 
gnomesayin said:
The trial is about whether NASCAR has committed anti-competitive actions that rise to the level of illegality. It is not a valid defense to assert that they had to use their monopoly power to exclude competition to preserve maximal income streams. That doesn't provide any legal justification. Many areas were declared off limits prior to and during trial, as in every trial. The irrelevance is the basis for it being excluded. Of course it is all subject to appeal.
Click to expand...
Bingo. NASCAR could of course keep itself the only major stock car series by not engaging in anticompetitive behavior too. Instead, as we learned yesterday via Ben Kennedy's own text messages, the France family has been planning for years for this "inevitable" showdown with the teams. Turns out they wanted this. Now of course "NASCAR isn't having any fun" says Kenny Wallace.
 
gnomesayin said:
The trial is about whether NASCAR has committed anti-competitive actions that rise to the level of illegality. It is not a valid defense to assert that they had to use their monopoly power to exclude competition to preserve maximal income streams. That doesn't provide any legal justification. Many areas were declared off limits prior to and during trial, as in every trial. The irrelevance is the basis for it being excluded. Of course it is all subject to appeal.
Click to expand...
Completely disagree. Plantiff’s trot out a so called “expert” to speculate on how the economies of NASCAR are unfair relative to F1, without the ability to prove it via detailed financials from the alternate racing series. This was to demonstrate how their business practices were detrimental. The testimony blocked would go directly to the heart of the matter, which was viability of the current TV deal IF the series becomes diminished via drivers racing in alternative venues/series.

And this area was NOT part of the “restricted” space Bell advised on pre trial. Bell is a Jordan idol worshipping POS. I’m sure he’s getting lots of signed memorabilia floating into his garage, or perhaps from a nice dinner shared with his favorite basketball player from back in the day. Bell is 67 and clearly has it in for NASCAR.
 
wi_racefan said:
I don't think its as much of a reach as you think for the casual fans. They see FedEx and Denny and all of a sudden the leap isn't that far.

I cant tell you how many times I was watching an Xfinity race and my wife or dad would ask "is this the big race?" (They don't even know series names) and I'll reply no and then they say oh I saw so and so in it and thought it was the big race
Click to expand...
23XI and Front Row don't have anybody testifying that Nascar with their "evil" tactics has denied them their chances to start a stock car racing series.
In fact 23XI and some others tried to start one, had their name trademarked for their series and nobody joined lol.
 
Conover said:
The testimony blocked would go directly to the heart of the matter, which was viability of the current TV deal IF the series becomes diminished via drivers racing in alternative venues/series.
Click to expand...
1) They already race in alternative venues/series
2) There's nothing requiring anticompetitive behavior to prevent an alternative series (which is what the trial is about; whether or not NASCAR exercised it's power as the sole entity in top tier stock car racing against the laws of the US)
Conover said:
And this area was NOT part of the “restricted” space Bell advised on pre trial.
Click to expand...
You mean how the trial itself is restricted in scope? That it isn't part of that scope?
Conover said:
Bell is a Jordan idol worshipping POS. I’m sure he’s getting lots of signed memorabilia floating into his garage, or perhaps from a nice dinner shared with his favorite basketball player from back in the day. Bell is 67 and clearly has it in for NASCAR.
Click to expand...
Lmaooooo
 
KTMLew01 said:
Never heard what a win for Nascar would be? For the two teams to be rode out-of-town on a rail or what? Sure seems the usual Nascar shills want exactly that. Seems like a sure sport killer to me.
Click to expand...
I think they just want to continue with the current agreement. What 23XI and FRM do it up to them
 
Conover said:
Completely disagree. Plantiff’s trot out a so called “expert” to speculate on how the economies of NASCAR are unfair relative to F1, without the ability to prove it via detailed financials from the alternate racing series. This was to demonstrate how their business practices were detrimental. The testimony blocked would go directly to the heart of the matter, which was viability of the current TV deal IF the series becomes diminished via drivers racing in alternative venues/series.

And this area was NOT part of the “restricted” space Bell advised on pre trial. Bell is a Jordan idol worshipping POS. I’m sure he’s getting lots of signed memorabilia floating into his garage, or perhaps from a nice dinner shared with his favorite basketball player from back in the day. Bell is 67 and clearly has it in for NASCAR.
Click to expand...
Somehow Nascar having to react because the TV entity in their contract states if they lose some of their drivers/teams that would change the whole pay structure of their sport including "franchise" payouts and the exec wasn't allowed to testify to those facts? When that is specifically part of the case? Hell yeah this isn't restricted.

NASCAR has been determined to have a monopoly when it comes to purchasing premier stock-car racing team services, and the teams claim that the poor business model — combined with the charter exclusionary clause that doesn’t allow them to compete without approval in NASCAR and any other stock-car series — is among the anticompetitive acts that NASCAR uses to keep its monopoly.
 
StandOnIt said:
Somehow Nascar having to react because the TV entity in their contract states if they lose some of their drivers/teams that would change the whole pay structure of their sport including "franchise" payouts and the exec wasn't allowed to testify to those facts? When that is specifically part of the case? Hell yeah this isn't restricted.

NASCAR has been determined to have a monopoly when it comes to purchasing premier stock-car racing team services, and the teams claim that the poor business model — combined with the charter exclusionary clause that doesn’t allow them to compete without approval in NASCAR and any other stock-car series — is among the anticompetitive acts that NASCAR uses to keep its monopoly.
Click to expand...
That NASCAR may feel motivated to act in an anticompetitive fashion doesn't mean that they legally can!
 
Jim France while trying to herd cats says the reason he doesn't want to go permanent charter is because he doesn't know what the future will bring is definitely a sane tact to take.
 
StandOnIt said:
There are NDA's and non competitive contracts signed every day. A NDA is in front of the court today as we speak pertaining to Childress.
Click to expand...
NDAs/noncompetitive contracts have zero to do with anticompetitive behavior by a monopsony. On top of that, NASCAR might have just committed tortious interference in this trial with relation to Childress!
 
virtualbalboa said:
NDAs/noncompetitive contracts have zero to do with anticompetitive behavior by a monopsony. On top of that, NASCAR might have just committed tortious interference in this trial with relation to Childress!
Click to expand...
The cat is already out of the bag lol. What about anti competitive clauses in contracts, lets hear the bloviating about that.
 
StandOnIt said:
The cat is already out of the bag lol. What about anti competitive clauses in contracts, lets hear the bloviating about that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, NASCAR let out protected info they shouldn't have had access to which is a wild thing to just act like was cool to do. ESPECIALLY when one of NASCAR's most loyal sponsors now putting them on blast.

People put illegal clauses in contracts all the time! That doesn't make them enforceable or legal!
 
virtualbalboa said:
Yeah, NASCAR let out protected info they shouldn't have had access to which is a wild thing to just act like was cool to do. ESPECIALLY when one of NASCAR's most loyal sponsors now putting them on blast.

People put illegal clauses in contracts all the time! That doesn't make them enforceable or legal!
Click to expand...
Ah yes. The crooked judge Bell wouldn't even hear it. So lazy he wouldn't even let them file a note in protest...save it for the appeal lol.
 
virtualbalboa said:
He has actively sanctioned NASCAR multiple times and...wait, that's right, because it's NASCAR that must mean NASCAR is being wronged, not that NASCAR is doing wrongs.
Click to expand...
Plain as day Bell hasn't let them present their case in many instances. This was a glaring reason why Nascar did what they did to guarantee everybody was going to get paid. They had a contract themselves to honor from the media. Everybody needs to be all in.
 
StandOnIt said:
Plain as day Bell hasn't let them present their case in many instances. This was a glaring reason why Nascar did what they did to guarantee everybody was going to get paid. They had a contract themselves to honor from the media. Everybody needs to be all in.
Click to expand...
It's not Bell's job to let NASCAR "present their case" and that contract you keep talking about doesn't justify anticompetitive behavior. At all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom